It’s good to have movies remind us of struggles for a lifestyle we take for granted. Hopefully people can recognize those same struggles going on today, and make the fight a little easier now, although it never seems to get any easier.
Suffragette sees the women’s voting rights movement in early 1900s England through the eyes of Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan), a laundry worker who unintentionally gets involved with the suffragette movement. She sees some of her colleagues participate in protests, and ends up speaking on one’s behalf as a favor. Watts would like to just keep her job and raise her son but the establishment makes conditions so unbearable that she’s forced to take an active role against them.
The men in law enforcement, led by Arthur Steed (Brendan Gleeson), conspire against the women in dark rooms, in one case literally a photography darkroom. It is such a threat to their way of life, you’d almost feel sorry for a culture whose worldview is so fragile that including a larger group of people in it would shatter them. You’d have compassion for misguidedness but still wouldn’t abide by denying equal rights. The men in government speak explicitly against women’s ability to think politically, and fear that giving them the vote will lead to women holding office. If that sounds crazy, which it was, just listen to the voices resisting change today.
It is also important that the way Suffragette shows this wasn’t simply about women wanting the rights to vote for politicians. At the time, women were denied rights in their own families. A husband could divorce and take the kids away, and put them up for adoption when he couldn’t care for them himself (after kicking his better half out). Some of these men were just making bad decisions, not necessarily evil ones. They were just confused by the shifting dynamics, which is why it’s important to remember these struggles have all happened over and over again in history. We don’t need to be confused every time there’s social change. There are men shown as loving supporters as well, so it’s fair, but if there were more of them this wouldn’t have been such a historic fight.
By the time Watts reaches her breaking point it is cathartic. The violence of the suffragette protests is effectively brutal, but not gratuitous. You realize that when the newspapers refused to cover the peaceful protests, creating a scene was the only way to get their voices heard. I could see a modern day protestor forced to do something rash so that their story could go viral.
My one complaint about Suffragette is just a personal preference. It’s well documented that I prefer my cinematography to be carefully composed and deliberate, not jerky handheld shakycam. These days you’ve probably got a 50/50 chance of seeing shaky footage in a movie, maybe even 60/40. So I’m just going to voice my preference but I didn’t let it ruin the movie. At least those shaky scenes are kept relatively in frame. All the important moments are visible.
Even as progressive as I like to think I am, I realize I only knew vaguely that, less than 100 years ago, women were not allowed to vote. I didn’t know the specifics of what that fight entailed, although I’m not surprised to see recurring themes like police beating peaceful protestors. I’m sure there’s some dramatic license to simplify an entire movement into a narrative movie, but Suffragette illustrates history in a compelling, dramatic way. In that regard, Suffragette is this year’s Selma.
Image Via Focus Features
Fred Topel is a veteran journalist since 1999 and has written for CraveOnline since 2006. See Fred on the ground at Sundance, SXSW, Telluride or in Los Angeles and follow him on Twitter @FredTopel, Instagram @Ftopel.
